I really don't understand what you're saying. What makes you think all Linux-IL'er would think like you do? Usually in a technical crowd there are variety of opinions on technical topics.
Why are the technical merits of the Windows OS are religious matter not to be discussed? I enjoyed discussing it. I would love to be convinced, and if you could provide me with a couple link to, say, major security holes in Windows 7, which enables remote code execution (via service, or via visiting a url with IE or via opening an email with Outlook) I'll be convinced that things are still not that bright. If you'll provide me with links to a security experts which say that little are changed since Windows XP, and MS systems are still considered insecure, I might not change my mind, but I'll realize that things aren't as clear as I think they are now (I'm not currently aware for such an opinion in the security community). Why are you so sure you'll never be convinced? Is there nothing that MS could theoretically do in order to improve? Is securing a complex software system is an impossible task that cannot be achieved? I rarely state that I won't be convinced in a technical matter And even if I won't be convinced, I'll be happy to read the discussion, since I'll probably learn things I didn't know before. I really don't understand what's so abysmal about this topic that makes it a "taboo". BTW I wonder, who are Linux-IL'ers which are imposed against me. I think that I'm a fine example of a Linux-IL'er, as a long time open source user and supporter. But maybe I'm wrong, and there are sets of believes and a ceremony in order to be entitled as a Linux IL'er ;-) On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Gilboa Davara <gilb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 00:31 +0300, Elazar Leibovich wrote: >> Some random links about the topic of MS security I ran into, and >> reminded me of this discussion: >> Marc Maffier (cofounder of eEye) on Windows security >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html >> "Now when you look at Microsoft today they do more to secure their >> software than anyone. They're the model for how to do it. They're not >> perfect; there's room for improvement. But they are definitely doing >> more than anybody else in the industry, I would say." >> "And you think Apple is taking it seriously too now? >> Maiffret: Oh yeah. It's even a little scarier with them because they >> try to market themselves as more secure than the PC, that you don't >> have to worry about viruses, etc. Anytime there's been a hacking >> contest, within a few hours someone's found a new Apple vulnerability. >> If they were taking it seriously, they wouldn't claim to be more >> secure than Microsoft because they are very much not." >> >> Cisco on using MS SDL development process to secure their code >> http://blogs.cisco.com/security/comments/the_cisco_secure_development_lifecycle_an_overview/ >> "Microsoft has also been a valuable partner as both a model for SDL >> and also as a sounding board for Cisco as we developed and adapted >> their concepts to meet the unique attributes of our development >> environment and needs." > > Would it be possible to end this thread? > Granted, I was one of the first participants, but it more-than-obvious > that Linux-IL'ers won't persuade you that MS is far from being secure, > and it's equally unlikely that by posting random links you'll persuade > Linux-IL'ers that MS is the new "white", making this sub-thread > redundant at best. > > - Gilboa > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
